68 Year old Marine Shot in his own home.

[Krauter]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/ny...ions.html?_r=1

The niece stood in the darkened stairwell of the Winbrook Houses, listening, as 20 feet away five police officers yelled at her uncle, who had locked himself in his apartment.

It was 5:25 on a chill November morning. The officers banged loud and hard, demanding that her 68-year-old uncle open his door.

I honestly don't even know what to make of this news clipping. I was just browsing a few link-sharing sites when the title grabbed me. I realize this is back in November but, why hadn't I seen this before in any news!?

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

What I don't understand is why police officers went to aparment with weapons and tasers drawn? This doesn't make sense.

[Jimbuna]

On face value, having read only that one article in the link, I would have concerns

[Platapus]

That news article is hardly full of objective facts. I would reserve opining until some more facts are released.

[August]

There are updates to the story:

http://www.thedailywhiteplains.com/t...th-Chamberlain

http://www.lohud.com/article/2012033...ll|text|News|s

[Platapus]

Naturally, all what I write depends on the jurisdiction rules of that locale.

But when I was riding on the city squads, if we received a 911 call, we, or the police, had to establish face to face contact with the caller before we could cancel the call. Reports still need to be filed, unfortunately.

A muffled reply behind a door saying "I'm OK, go away" would not suffice. The rational is three fold.

1. There is always the possibility that someone (family member?) is trying to prevent EMS from responding to the caller. It happens.

2. There is also the possibility that the caller is a victim of a home invasion and there is a baddie preventing EMS/Police from responding.

3. The caller may be mentally ill or experiencing an emotional "incident". This falls in to the Implied Consent rules.

And there are legal justifications that allow EMS (rarely) or the police (more common) to take reasonable actions to establish face to face communication with the caller. Oops, there's that word reasonable again. .

Fortunately, all these are pretty uncommon, but EMS and the police have to be prepared for the worst. I think it is a pretty good protocol. This is one of the many reasons why police respond along with EMS. The police have authority to do stuff that EMS, rightfully, does not.

But...

This individual did not call 911. The activated a "life alert" type of alarm and the alarm company called 911. That may being other legalities into the equation. It all depends on the jurisdiction and their rules.

But....

If the police roll out on a 911 call and the person who calls, refuses personal contact, is that probable cause? And if so, probable cause of what?

I am not a cop nor do I stay in Holiday Inn Expresses. But if I rolled up on a call where a person called 911 (or in this case activated an alarm) and then they refused to come out of their apartment, I would be a bit suspicious.

A man has the right to the security of his home, but if he calls 911 (or activates an alarm) asking for help, does he still have that right? In my jurisdiction (Nebraska) not until the police can establish personal contact with the caller.

All he had to do was come to the door and demonstrate that he was truly OK or not being coerced.

There is more to this story, methinks.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by August

There are updates to the story:

http://www.thedailywhiteplains.com/t...th-Chamberlain

http://www.lohud.com/article/20120330/NEWS02/303300046/Chamberlain-s-son-says-D-promised-grand-jury-White-Plains-police-shooting?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|News|s

Thatk you August!